Posts by aqwsed12345

119

What does the Catholic church think of JW?

by Halcon in

on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

I know very well that you are an apostle of anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred, and especially against me, so in the future I would ask you that if your comments do not contain any substantive objections (only a methodological temper tantrum related to AI), then please rather do not speak to me at all .You have spoken nonsense as usual, I contacted the Weilheim parish and the archives, and they responded to this. And what have you done, buddy, to substantiate your claim of JW bias? Have you done any research on the subject, or are you just harassing me?

119

What does the Catholic church think of JW?

by Halcon in

on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

aqwsed12345

Recent genealogical research has provided new insights into the purported familial connection between Stefanie Blabst Brzakovic and Pope Benedict XVI. Previously, it was believed that Stefanie's mother, Katharina Berger, was born in Weilheim, which could have suggested a geographical link to the Pope's maternal lineage. However, official records now confirm that Katharina Berger was born in Garmisch-Partenkirchen.

This revelation is significant because it further distances the Berger family from the well-documented maternal ancestry of Pope Benedict XVI, which includes the Rieger, Reiss, Peintner, and Tauber families. These families were primarily located in regions such as Welden, Günzburg, and South Tyrol, with no known connections to Garmisch-Partenkirchen.

Moreover, the Ratzinger family's history is centered around southeastern Bavaria, including towns like Tittmoning, Aschau am Inn, and Traunstein. In contrast, Garmisch-Partenkirchen is situated in a different part of Bavaria, and there is no documented evidence of interactions or relationships between the Ratzinger and Berger families.

Given the absence of overlapping geographical, genealogical, or social ties, the claim that Stefanie Blabst Brzakovic was a second cousin of Pope Benedict XVI lacks substantiation. Until concrete genealogical evidence emerges linking the Berger family to the Pope's maternal lineage, this assertion remains unverified.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

Dear Annie,

Thank you for your reply, even if it was written in frustration. I take seriously your correction regarding your background, and I sincerely apologize for my mistaken assumption. If I misunderstood your religious history, then that is entirely my fault and not yours. Thank you for clarifying your academic credentials and affiliation. I appreciate the clarification, and I assure you that my intention was never to patronize or diminish your identity, but to respond to a broader pattern I’ve often encountered in ex-Witness or post-Watchtower contexts. In this case, I wrongly applied that frame to you, and for that, I apologize.

That said, if I may be allowed to respond with charity and precision, your tone suggests I am incapable of grasping or addressing the substance of arguments, and that I go off on tangents to avoid engaging. That’s a strong accusation, and I would like to take it seriously and respond constructively, not combatively.

The truth of a theological claim is not established by the credentials of the speaker but by the substance of the argument, the coherence of the doctrine with Scripture and apostolic tradition, and its continuity with the historic Church. Your irritation with my method suggests that I failed to communicate with the clarity or focus you expect from a conversation partner, and I am sorry if that has made dialogue with me more difficult than it should be. But I hope you’ll allow for the possibility that my approach—thorough, historical, and sourced—is not an attempt to deflect or misdirect, but to answer in the context of what I believe to be the fullness of Christian truth, which includes deep roots and long arguments.

If I emphasize the Church Fathers, the ecumenical councils, and the development of doctrine through time, it is not because I want to evade Scripture or dodge your arguments, but because—as a Catholic—I believe theology must be historically and ecclesially grounded. I do not think that responding to Protestant or post-Protestant critiques with sound bites and slogans is productive. I offer long-form replies because Catholicism is a religion of continuity, and the issues at stake are complex and demand more than proof-texting or isolated assertions.

You accuse me of failing to reply concisely. But concision, while valuable in academic writing, does not always serve truth well when the argument being made by the other side is itself built on centuries of inherited assumptions and implicit premises. When someone says “Catholicism is unbiblical,” they may be assuming an entire hermeneutical framework—sola scriptura, for instance—that I must first challenge before we can even meaningfully discuss Marian doctrines or the papacy. That’s not evasion—it’s theological groundwork.

You say I "go off in tangents," but if I reference anti-Catholic polemics, or the influence of former belief systems on someone’s present worldview, it is because those things shape how people engage with Catholic arguments. If someone quotes from an anti-Catholic preacher like Justin Peters or appeals to notions of "Babylon the Great" or dismisses the Catechism as "Catholic nonsense," then I must address not just the surface objection, but the worldview beneath it.

You say I need to “grasp the arguments.” I welcome correction if I’ve misunderstood something specific you’ve written. But so far, the majority of criticisms I’ve received (not just from you) have not directly refuted the substance of Catholic doctrine I’ve presented, but rather dismissed it as irrelevant, absurd, or misguided. Telling me that I’m irritating or “idiotic” may express how you feel, but it doesn’t actually address any claim I’ve made. You’re a historian in training. I respect that. Then let’s do what historians and theologians must do—trace ideas to their sources, test them against the documentary and doctrinal record, and argue from evidence, not emotion.

I do not pretend to be the Pope. I have no magisterial authority. I’m simply a Catholic layman trying to articulate why I believe the Catholic Church is the visible, apostolic, and sacramentally constituted Church founded by Christ. That claim is falsifiable. If you think it’s wrong, then engage the historical and theological arguments I present. Show that the early Church was Protestant in its ecclesiology or soteriology. Show that Catholic doctrines like apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, or the Eucharist as sacrifice were invented later and absent from the early centuries. If you believe the papacy is a medieval distortion, show that the evidence from Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Leo the Great, and others is misread or manipulated. I don’t think you can, but I welcome the attempt.

I understand you’re irritated. Perhaps this conversation has dragged longer than it should. If you choose to disengage, I will respect that. But know that my replies are not personal attacks or exercises in pride. They are my attempt—however imperfect—to give reason for the hope that is in me. If I sometimes fail in tone or tact, I ask your forgiveness. But I will not apologize for defending my faith with full conviction, and I will continue doing so as long as the claims of Christ and the truth of His Church are at stake.

If you ever wish to have a calmer, more measured conversation—about Church history, theology, or anything else—I would welcome it.

Peace be with you,
"aqwsed12345"

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

@vienne

I want to begin by acknowledging something important: I completely believe you when you say you’re no longer a Jehovah’s Witness and have left behind their specific teachings. That is a significant step, and I know for many it involves pain, courage, and a long personal journey. My intention is not to dismiss your experiences or conflate your present position with the Watchtower’s doctrines. However, I do want to point out—respectfully and carefully—that even among former Witnesses, certain anti-Catholic assumptions tend to linger subconsciously. These were instilled so deeply in the JW framework that they often survive long after one has mentally rejected the organization itself. My engagement here is not about "forcing" Catholicism on anyone, but about responding to misinformation and inherited biases that continue to shape people’s thinking, even when they believe they’ve moved on from the system that planted them.

I understand that when someone defends the Catholic Church strongly and persistently, it can sound like they are dismissive of others or closed off to criticism. That’s not my intention. Rather, it’s because so many discussions—even outside the Watchtower—are already saturated with misinformation about Catholic beliefs. From false claims about idol worship, to the papacy being a "man-made invention," to simplistic caricatures of Catholic soteriology, the Catholic faith is constantly being attacked with recycled arguments that rarely engage the actual teachings of the Church. When I cite the Church Fathers, it's not out of blind loyalty but because these are the earliest Christian voices outside the New Testament—those closest in time to the apostles themselves. To ignore them is to sever ourselves from our historical and spiritual roots. These early Christians weren’t perfect, but they offer invaluable insight into how the Church understood Scripture, doctrine, liturgy, and apostolic succession long before denominationalism emerged.

You suggest that my sources are questionable or that I rely too heavily on the Catholic Encyclopedia. But what I present is not isolated to one source; it's drawn from centuries of teaching, across ecumenical councils, papal encyclicals, the Catechism, and the writings of both saints and scholars. What many ex-JWs and Protestant critics often dismiss as "Catholic nonsense" is simply the lived continuity of the Church from the time of the apostles to today—something which every Protestant denomination, no matter how sincere, cannot claim historically. I don’t expect people to accept that at face value. I argue for it because it’s a matter of historical record and theological consistency.

As for your comment that I "do not take criticism"—on the contrary, I engage with it at length. But criticism is only productive when it moves beyond name-calling and actually addresses the substance of an argument. Dismissing appeals to the Church Fathers as “Catholic nonsense” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s a slogan. To say that I need to meet someone like Justin Peters doesn’t help the conversation either. Justin Peters is a staunch Calvinist cessationist. He and I would disagree on several fundamental points—so invoking him as some kind of authoritative alternative to the Catholic faith misses the mark. If we are to take our search for truth seriously, we need to go deeper than simply jumping from one authoritative voice to another. We need to ask: which Church today most faithfully preserves the teaching, sacramental life, and structure instituted by Christ Himself?

The suggestion that I think “you’re all still Jehovah’s Witnesses at heart” is not fair. I fully acknowledge that many of you have stepped far away from the Watchtower and are seeking truth through your own discernment. But I will also point out, gently, that the anti-Catholic framework deeply built into JW theology leaves a lasting shadow. The Watchtower spent decades vilifying Catholicism—calling it "Babylon the Great," attributing to it every imaginable evil, and teaching its members that Catholic doctrines are pagan or Satanic. These ideas don’t just suddenly disappear when someone leaves the Watchtower. They often remain lodged in the subconscious, coloring how people respond to anything remotely Catholic. So when someone rejects the Watchtower and then immediately turns to aggressive Protestant critiques of Catholicism, it's worth asking: did you really escape the system, or just change uniforms?

I understand that emotions run high in these conversations, especially for people who feel hurt or betrayed by religion. But what’s at stake here is not about winning arguments or proving who’s right for the sake of pride. It’s about truth. If Christ truly founded a Church—one Church, with visible structure and enduring authority—then we must ask where that Church is today. History matters. Continuity matters. Apostolic succession matters. And while Catholics are the first to admit the personal failures and scandals of individuals within the Church, these failures do not nullify the divine promises of Christ to preserve His Church in truth (Matthew 16:18, John 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15).

So I will keep defending the Catholic faith because I believe it is not a man-made institution, but the Church founded by Christ. Not because its leaders are flawless, but because its faith is. And I’ll continue to engage respectfully with anyone who seeks truth—even those who remain skeptical—because that’s what Christ would do. I don’t expect instant agreement, but I do hope for honest consideration.

If you think I’m mistaken, show me where the early Church taught what your current beliefs reflect. If you believe I rely on weak sources, present stronger historical and theological ones. But don’t just wave your hand and call it “nonsense.” The stakes are too high for that. The truth deserves more than slogans—it deserves serious, patient, and charitable dialogue.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

Of course I kneel before the altar and the Eucharist, but I haven't had the opportunity to meet the Pope yet, but of course I would kiss the Ring of the Fisherman.

Why do people kiss the Pope’s ring?

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

Appealing to the age of Romanism is a false argument. The Bible says Satan is extremely ancient. That does not make him holy, God ordained, or any such thing. The argument from age is misdirected.

Catholics do not argue that the Catholic Church is true simply because it is old, as if mere antiquity guaranteed holiness or divine origin. Rather, the point is more precise and vital: the Catholic Church’s age is not just a measure of years but a testimony to its continuous and institutional existence since the very foundation of Christianity by Jesus Christ. It is not the sheer length of time that matters, but the fact that the Catholic Church alone traces its origin in an unbroken line back to the very beginning of the Church at Pentecost in AD 33, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and the Church was publicly inaugurated.

If the Catholic Church were simply an old institution among many others, or if it had been founded, say, 300 years after Christ, then it would have no more claim to divine truth than any other ancient religion or system. Similarly, if the Catholic Church had originated before Christ, as an institution completely disconnected from the events of the Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection, its antiquity would be irrelevant. What is crucial is that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ, preserved through history by apostolic succession, protected by Christ’s promises that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), and sustained by the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding it "into all truth" (John 16:13). The Church’s continuity is not simply historical but theological, rooted in divine promises and sacramental reality.

This is why Catholics insist on examining the origin of any Christian community. Any church that can be shown to have arisen later in history, detached from apostolic succession, is necessarily disqualified from being the true Church established by Christ. It is not enough to claim to teach the Bible or to speak about Jesus. Even Satan quoted Scripture to Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:6). The question is institutional and sacramental: which Church today is in organic continuity with the apostolic Church of the first century? Only the Catholic Church, together with the Eastern Orthodox (who share the same apostolic succession but are separated from full communion), can make a credible historical claim to such continuity. Every Protestant denomination, by contrast, arose from a rupture, a break from existing ecclesial authority, in the sixteenth century or later. This is not a matter of opinion but of plain historical record.

When we ask about any institution — whether a church, a movement, a school of thought — the founding date and the mode of its founding are essential to its legitimacy. If an organization claims to be founded by Christ Himself, it must show that it existed continuously from the time of Christ. A later invention, however noble its aspirations, simply cannot be the same institution that Jesus personally established. Therefore, it is not simply that the Catholic Church is "old"; it is that it is the Church Christ Himself founded, existing uninterruptedly across the centuries, through apostolic succession, sacramental life, and fidelity to the apostolic deposit of faith.

Protestantism, on the other hand, is historically traceable not to the first century but to the sixteenth-century Reformation. Before Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, there were no Protestant churches. If Protestantism had been the true Christianity, we would expect to see Protestant beliefs institutionalized and continuously taught from the beginning. But history shows that Protestant doctrines — sola scriptura, sola fide, the rejection of sacramental grace, denial of apostolic succession — were novel interpretations, innovations that departed from the consistent faith of the early Church Fathers and the councils.

Thus, the Catholic appeal to historical continuity is not a fallacious appeal to mere antiquity. It is an appeal to the promises of Christ that His Church would endure until the end of time without failing, and to the fact that this Church must have visible, historical, institutional continuity with the Church of the apostles. This is why Jesus prayed, "That they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you" (John 17:21), and why Saint Paul describes the Church as the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). A fragmented Christianity with churches popping up centuries later, each with conflicting doctrines, cannot be what Christ intended.

Therefore, to dismiss the Catholic Church’s continuity as irrelevant because "Satan is also ancient" is to miss the real issue entirely. Satan's age testifies only to his rebellion and ongoing opposition to God's plan. The Catholic Church's age, on the other hand, testifies to the fidelity of Christ to His own promise, the action of the Holy Spirit in history, and the Church's role as the authentic custodian of the gospel. It is not about being old; it is about being the same Church — visibly, organically, and sacramentally — that Christ Himself founded for the salvation of the world.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

@Earnest

The Catholic Church has never claimed that every word or action of its leaders is infallible or guided by the Holy Spirit. What it does teach—clearly and precisely—is that when the Church, through the pope or an ecumenical council, intends to teach definitively on faith or morals, it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, in fulfillment of Christ’s promise that "the gates of hell will not prevail" against His Church (Matthew 16:18) and that the Spirit would guide the Church "into all truth" (John 16:13). Outside of those specific, narrowly defined cases, Church leaders, even popes, can and have erred personally, morally, and even theologically. But this is no contradiction—it’s the distinction between the human and divine elements of the Church. The Watchtower, by contrast, makes sweeping claims about being God’s sole channel and requires absolute doctrinal obedience to ever-changing interpretations, and when proven wrong, retreats behind the claim that they were never infallible in the first place. That’s not a parallel to Catholic teaching—it’s equivocation. Catholicism offers a consistent theological framework grounded in Scripture, history, and reason; it doesn't claim divine protection over everything done by its members, only over what Christ Himself promised to preserve: the deposit of faith.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

"...designed to demonstrate how wrong everybody is who’s not a Catholic."

I have never claimed such a thing, and I especially like to debate with those who actually know Catholic teaching well and can criticize it on its merits, and I am angry with those who continue such primitive tirades and repeat standard topos.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

This approach wouldn't work without a large element of truth behind it.

Would you say the same about the cartoons of hook-nosed Jews in the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer?

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

@vienne

Your entire response only confirms what I said: you are trapped in the same tired, anti-Catholic fallacies that have been refuted for centuries — and you’re apparently either unwilling or unable to think your way out of them.

First, "credibility" is completely irrelevant to the truth of a tenet. If a mathematician who happens to be a mass murderer, pedophile, terrorist whatever, claims that 2+2=4, then he is right in this regard, as opposed to the pious, benevolent mathematician who claims that 5. And therefore, if all the popes in the history of the world had done nothing but bathe in the blood of babies 24/7, if their theology is correct, then it is correct despite their personal morals, and likewise all non-Catholics - despite all their personal moral values - are in error. So the morals of the popes and the clergy are just a red herring, completely irrelevant.

Therefore, your analogy between the Catholic Church and political entities like Russia is fundamentally flawed and absurd. The Church is not a mere political institution; it is, according to Scripture itself, the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27). No political entity, ancient or modern, has ever claimed to be the mystical Body of the eternal Son of God. By trying to shoehorn the Church into a secular political framework, you reveal not only theological ignorance but a complete disregard for what the Bible says about Christ’s Church. In short, your analogy is a category error — the kind of basic logical mistake that invalidates your entire argument from the start.

Second, you say that you "read" Hislop’s book "like a historian." Nonsense. Any serious historian — Catholic, Protestant, or secular — recognizes that Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons is a work of fantasy, not credible historical scholarship. Protestant scholars themselves have exposed Hislop as a fraud. If you actually did your "historian" homework instead of parroting anti-Catholic propaganda, you would know that reputable historians like Ralph Woodrow, a Protestant who initially accepted Hislop, later publicly recanted after realizing that Hislop’s work was riddled with distortions, false associations, fabricated etymologies, and historical absurdities. Hislop's book is to serious historical research what flat-Earth theory is to astronomy. The fact that you still cling to it disqualifies you from any pretense of serious historical discourse.

Third, your tactic is the classic Donatist error: you think the sins of individual Catholics, even priests and popes, disprove the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ. This is both logically and biblically bankrupt. If your standard were true, you would have to reject the Old Testament covenant as well, since Israel’s priests, prophets, and kings — including Moses, Aaron, David, and Solomon — committed grave sins. Yet God’s covenant remained, not because of their perfection, but because of God’s faithfulness (Romans 11:29). You offer no serious theological rebuttal to this. You don’t even try. You just repeat the same simplistic slogan: "Your clergy are corrupt." So what? The personal sins of leaders have never, in any biblical dispensation, invalidated the legitimacy of God's covenant community.

You shout that the Church's "self-identity depends on historically and scripturally untenable claims," but you offer no proof — just assertions. You think if you repeat it often enough and loudly enough, it will become true. It won’t. The Catholic Church’s claims are rooted in the clear testimony of Scripture: Christ established one visible Church (Matthew 16:18–19; John 17:21), promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), and conferred divine teaching authority upon its leaders (Matthew 18:17–18; Luke 10:16). Your approach — "ignore everything but the Bible, cut yourself off from history, tradition, and reason" — is a recipe for doctrinal chaos, not truth. Indeed, your method has already spawned over 40,000 Protestant denominations, all reading the same Bible yet reaching contradictory conclusions. So much for your supposed "clear scriptural debate."

You declare, smugly, that if I were serious, I would "abandon everything but the Bible." Really? Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura? Especially your kind of "nuda Scriptura"? Chapter and verse, please. I’ll wait. (Spoiler: it doesn’t. Sola scriptura is an extrabiblical Protestant invention from the 16th century — a human tradition, ironically violating the very principle it claims to uphold.)

Moreover, your demand that Christians should rely """only""" on Scripture ignores how Scripture itself commands us to hold fast to both written and oral tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). You pretend that citing the Church Fathers or the consistent tradition of the Christian faith across two millennia is a weakness. In reality, it is your weakness — because you have no history, no continuity, no connection to the apostles except the Bible you privately reinterpret according to your own whims.

In short, you have no right to criticize "convoluted reasoning" when your own position is built on historical amnesia, theological illiteracy, and logical inconsistency. You refuse to answer basic challenges, such as:

Where was your invisible, "purely Bible-based" church before the 16th century?
How did Christians determine the canon of Scripture without the Catholic Church?
How do you know your private interpretation is correct when countless other Bible-only readers reach opposite conclusions?

You have no answers because your system collapses once questioned. So instead, you retreat into personal attacks and recycled sectarian slogans. Your "arguments" — if they can even be called that — amount to nothing more than a bundle of emotional resentments masquerading as theological critique.

Finally, your sneering comment that you "don't care how offended" I am by Watchtower publications only further exposes your bias. I wasn’t offended — I was pointing out that your anti-Catholic rhetoric mirrors the propaganda tactics of groups like the Watchtower: a toxic brew of historical falsification, character assassination, and shallow theology.

You said you think I'm here for "self-verification." No — I’m here because the truth matters, and because Christ promised that His Church would stand forever (Matthew 28:19-20). Meanwhile, you're here to shout at the Bride of Christ from the outside, clinging desperately to your caricatures and conspiracy theories.

I’ll stand with Christ and His Church. You can keep shouting at the walls. It won't change reality. The Catholic Church remains — despite persecution, heresy, scandal, and every attack from enemies ancient and modern — because she is the Church founded by Christ Himself. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.